The YFZ, FLDS Plight–Some Interim Thoughts . . .

This story continues to be riveting; but as many have pointed out, it is beginning to fade, and will continue to do so with time. I will still continue to blog about it in the days, weeks, and possibly months to come, but probably not with the same frequency. Many questions remain. I have nothing profound to add. I have read each and every comment on the various posts on this blog, and on many others to which I have linked. Of course I do not have time to respond to them all; however, I have appreciated all the discussion, and have learned a great deal from many of the comments.

So thanks to all for contributing to what I think has been and continues to be a critical discussion. It is a discussion about those rights, we in the United States consider to be fundamental.Rights that are “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” Rights including the right to be safe and secure in our homes, free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right of the free exercise of religion, the right of association, the right of creating, raising, and teaching our families, the right to due process, and the right of equal protection of the laws.

I am concerned about the fate of these families who remain in the Texas judicial and CPS system–based on what I have seen thus far. I applaud all the pro bono lawyers who have answered the call to help represent the children, mothers and fathers. Perhaps the coming hearings will be more fair, or perhaps the Texas appellate system will help rectify some of the due process abuses we have thus far witnessed at the trial court level. What I would really like to see, is for the federal courts to somehow be involved. We’ll just have to see how it plays out.

For those who believe in prayer, I am sure you are praying for these families. If there are legitimate areas of investigation–let the investigations take place. Let any criminal law violations be prosecuted, if supported by credible evidence. But, most important, let those against whom there is no physical evidence of wrong doing, for whom there is no immediate risk of harm–let them be reunited with their families–and soon.

87 Responses to “The YFZ, FLDS Plight–Some Interim Thoughts . . .”

I know everyone has already said this, but thank you again for all your coverage on this. Your blog has singlehandedly beaten every other media outlet on coverage of this very important event.

I too hope for some actual justice to take place in the coming months, but I fear that as the story fades from the mainstream news headlines, no one will care if all of these kids end up in foster care or if their rights are ever fully addressed.

Thank you, Guy. I care just as much as I did on the first day, and will continue to read your posts.

I don’t often long for the federal government to get involved in anything, but this is one of those exceptional times. If FLDS conditions were as horrific as Texas wants to pretend, then the children of Utah and Arizona are equally at risk — how can any government allowthe fate of a child to depend on whether she moved to Texas two days before the raid, or had planned on moving back to Arizona two days afterward? Either all FLDS children are at risk, or none of them are (as a class — individually may be another matter, and requires the individual judgment that has been so totally lacking in this fiasco). Utah and Arizona say they are not; Texas says they are. It’s time for a superior authority to get involved — and I’d like to be confident that the more sophisticated U.S. government would overrule the Texas bullies. We can hope, anyway.

I’ve been thinking for a day about posting the following comments, and your blog’s coverage of events suggests it might be a good place to speak.

Having represented (not always successfully) state agencies charged with protecting children, and because of my own LDS affiliation and heritage, I have watched this situation closely. What I find most troublesome is the scope of the removal. I look at it this way.

Physical removal of children from homes is based on threats if imminent physical or emotional harm.

The State received what appeared to be legitimate information about a threat of serious harm that could occur at any moment: older men engaging in illegal sexual activity with underage, post-pubescent girls. The State is obligated to protect minors, and so was justified in taking action, including immediately removing threatened children from their homes.

But at least according to news reports, there is no evidence of any imminent threat to anyone but post-pubescent girls. Yet the State removed all the children from the ranch. The scope of its effort was highlighted yesterday by news that even nursing infants would be separated from their mothers — despite the apparent complete absence of any threat to those infants.

I do not of course, have access to the State’s evidence. But so far, I see nothing that could justify the scope of the State’s action. And I feel sorry not just for the children who seem to have been unjustifiably removed from their families, but for the Texas taxpayers who will be on the hook for the State’s liability for constitutional violations.

I’ve appreciated your website and the discussions on the situation in Texas and related topics. Likely we would not agree on many points, but it is apparent that while you obviously have some strong opinions, you have monitored this site with an attempt to allow differing points of view to be made. I’m sure we would agree that the children’s welfare is paramount here. I hope the group homes and placements will be temporary and that they will be well cared for in the interim while the Courts sort this out. I’m not saying this was a good thing, (taking all the children), but I trust good things will come out of all of this. Those that were at risk or that were abused will be safe and the abusers locked up. The young boys and girls will have their world opened up a bit where they will see that not all outsiders are evil people out to get them. Even though, they were taken away from the ranch (likely a point “for evil”), the caregivers showed them respect, fun, and care ( a point for “no evil”). I also hope that families will be reunited that were broken apart by Warren Jeffs. Paternity testing may help with that.

I have question regarding that initial warrant. Can the state now use a blanket warrant to search all gated communities as they did in Eldorado, Tx. Or how about gated apartment complexes that have security fences and communal mail box locations.

The judge overseeing the cases of more than 400 FLDS children in state custody said this afternoon adult mothers of infants age 12 months and under should remain with their babies in state custody.

There are 18 adult mothers with nursing babies under 12 months old, according to CPS.

I am so glad those nursing infants under 12 months can stay with their mothers. I wish the judge knew anything at all about the benefits of extended breastfeeding, and my heart aches for the little nurslings, but at least she isn’t sending them hundreds of miles away. What a pathetic situation, where we are grateful that nurslings aren’t sent hundreds of miles from their nonabusive parents when the court’s own witness has said they are not in imminent danger.

(14) — In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center listed the FLDS on their Hatewatch because of Warren Jeffs’ multiple and undeniably racist teachings (“The black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth,” condemning the Mormon church for ordaining blacks to the priesthood, and on and on). AR (11) is very carefully saying that the Southern Poverty Law Center is secretly pulling the strings to orchestrate the FLDS raid and control the court’s rulings, and that therefore those of us who object to the raid and ongoing injustice should oppose the SPLC.

In plainer terms, AR opposes the SPLC and wants to enlist us in similar opposition. In even plainer terms, AR is a racist and is feeling the waters to see whether we are also racists.

HI – I just wanted to voice my thoughts on the matter. I’m an LDS woman with a rich LDS heritage that includes polygamy. When I see those FLDS ladies on T.V. I think to myself – that could be me. If my ancestors had made different choices, that could be me. What if I thought that my value to society was my ability to have children. I have always been very curious and a good student, what if I only had a 7th grade education instead of a masters degree? I was terrified to visit the OBGYN the first time before I got married – I can’t imagine having a couple of days notice that I would be married, to someone I might not know well, and might not love with all my heart. I can’t imagine the terror of that marriage consummation. What if I didn’t have the right to decide how many kids I wanted. I’m glad I didn’t feel influenced in anyway regarding the number of children I would have – societal or otherwise. The majority of those women had so many kids, I just wouldn’t be cut out for that – what if didn’t have a choice in the matter? Would I allow myself to be “reassigned” when my husband was sent to “repent from afar.” Would I bear another mans children just because I was told too? Would I let my daughter be married to a much older man? Would I abandon my son, never to see him again, when he was 18 years old because he listened to a C.D.? I look at those women, and they seem so broken. I have so much sympathy for them – they are obviously in pain. That could be me, and it just seems wrong, really wrong. I wouldn’t want that for their daughters either. These women need help, and maybe this raid is the wrong way to get them help, but at least somebody did something.

My ancestors that practiced polygamy didn’t practice THIS kind of polygamy. I’ve read the histories of the families. My Great Great Grandfather married his wifes sister after her husband died. Their families were close, the men promised each other that if something happened to one of them, the other would take care of his family. So, my Grandfather married this woman, but he never moved into her home, the families lived in different towns, he didn’t father any of her children. He worked her land, and kept a roof over her head and her children fed. When President Woodruff ended polygamy he divorced his second wife, but continued to take care of her and her family. It is a relief to me to know this. It is very painful to me to know that the polygamists beliefs and my beliefs started in the same place. I believe that it was pride that caused the polygamists to break from the church generations ago, and that without the authority of the priesthood their church mutated into a cult. I think it is time that these people were exposed. If consenting adults want to practice polygamy so be it – I wouldn’t care. BUT, only if the woman is at least 18 and has had a formal education. It isn’t really a choice if there in no alternative (there must be opposition in all things :)). Also, I don’t worry that I could be next – that the authorities will suddenly break down my door and take my boys from me because I’m a Mormon. I have nothing to hide. If I were abusing my children I would deserve to have my home searched.

So, thanks for the blog, it is very enlightening to know what other LDS people think about this topic that is so close to our hearts.

Thank you for your blog site!! It is enlightening people care about those precious children. I personly know alot of those people and all the RUMOR about abuse is such a lie. Has any one ever talked to people who actualy know flds? They are good people who love there children and there is NO abuse. Just because Carelyn Jessop and others say bla bla bla….. they are liers. Those women are free. They are happy. What the CPS are doing is MUCH worse than any thing the FLDS are being acussed of. Also, There is not 13 and 14 year olds being married. No one is forsed. Lissie Wall ( as the ones who knew her called her) was not ether(forsed)She is making up a BIG soap opra. My Question is why don’t people ask the flds and those that know them, not the ones who “Escaped”.

Again thank you for this site, keep it up. And, please don’t let the story die down. AMERICA don’t let those children down.

Interestingly, here are the words of Arizona’s governor from 1953 (source: http://savethechildbrides.com ):
[ . . . ]
More than 120 peace officers moved into Short Creek, in Mohave County, at 4 o’clock this morning. They have arrested almost the entire population of a community dedicated to the production of white slaves who are without hope of escaping this degrading slavery from the moment of their birth.
Highly competent investigators have been unable to find a single instance in the last decade of a girl child reaching the age of 15 without having been forced into a shameful mockery of marriage.
The State of Arizona is fulfilling today one of every state’s deepest obligations–to protect and defend the helpless.
The State is moving at once to seek through the courts the custody of these 263 children, all under the age of 18. They are the innocent chattels of a lawless commercial undertaking of wicked design and ruthlessly exercised power. This in turn is the co-operative enterprise of five or six coldly calculating men who direct all of the operations and reap all of the profits, and are the evil heart of the insurrection itself.[ . . . ]

People’s reaction to this incident would make a fascinating case study. From my observation, it is the liberals who see no harm in the soviet-style “shoot first ask questions later” approach to this investigation. They are quick to brand anyone who disagrees as a supporter of child abuse. I can’t help but think that for the vast majority of children taken from their parents in this case, the real child abuse was at the hands of the State of Texas and those who turned their heads to gross violations of due process.

All this generalization we keep seeing in the TV, as if all 437 children have been abused, if any. Nothing is proven- what happened to American’s ability to think critically, instead of having a mob mentality lead by the feeding frenzy of mass media and bloggers. Where is the blogger who will stand up for due process and innocence until proven guilty? Did the love of our constitution go by the wayside with the Patriots Act? Abuse does not occur in any higher percentage in any particular church or in any particular community. it is everywhere. And do not forget that the marriageable age in Texas was only recently raised to 16 years from 14 years, so before you go riding your merry bandwagons to the lynching, maybe you should wait for due process, if it occurs….

Nunnely
I am very liberal and I wrote that above. I think it is the very liberal and the very conservative who have the same values- love of the Constitution and the ones in between dont care at all. I like Alex Jones, Obama and Ron Paul, Admiral Fallon and Michael Moore. We all love the Constitution.

Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian, not a liberal. I haven’t heard anything from Obama or Michael Moore on this issue, but would bet money that they aren’t too upset about it.

From reading commentary on liberal websites, it seems that most feel that these women and children have been “liberated” from some sort of slavery. Their real issue with the YFZ Ranch is about fundamentalist Christianity and feminism, and has nothing to do with child abuse. Any time you have a Christian community that is fundamentalist, patriarchal, weary of outsiders, and self supporting without government handouts, liberals will take offense.

These are the same people who support the destigmatization of all types of sexual deviancy but now all of the sudden have a problem with polygamy and arranged marriages? This is a classic case of “we know what is best for you.” They so brazenly assume that since they would not choose to live such a life that no one else should want to either. At the heart of the matter, I think they most take offense to what they perceive is the subjugation of women at the ranch.

But let this be a lesson to all with the upcoming election. Many liberals and conservatives alike only care about upholding constitutional principles when it is a means to an end. We must all seek to educate ourselves and others of the dangers of deviating to far from the these principles.

I still can’t get away from the feeling that the FLDS in this situation are akin to the people of Zeniff under King Noah, who perverted the teachings of the Lord and who the Lamanites subjugated with the Lord taking his time in helping them out. Were the people of Zeniff deserving of enslavement at the hands of the Lamanites? Why didn’t the Lord move quicker to free them?

While the state of Texas’ actions were a little over the top (and, adding to the twist of this whole shameless story, it was spurred by a prank Colorado caller), I just cannot find it in me to get emotional about the “plight” of the FLDS. They don’t listen to the real prophet of God and continue perverting condemned teachings while claiming otherwise. This may be the natural consequence of such actions. And while this may not look right from our very narrow viewpoint, taken from the grander scheme, is it right for the FLDS to flourish? Is it within God’s plans for humanity? Should not that perverted thinking be done away with at some point? I’m not in any way recommending actually going around and doing away with “perverted thinking,” but that a natural consequence of the “shifting the wheat from the chaff” is that the chaff gets separated from the wheat.

I agree with T. Nunnley’s comments. Most liberals (and even some conservatives) automatically assume that if they themselves wouldn’t choose to live a certain way or have certain values, then those who hold them must be under oppression. Unfortunately, this puts the liberals in the role of the oppressor.

In our little community (also in TX) there is a whole slew of girls (7th grade and up) who are seeking to get pregnant by whomever they can. There are also teen aged boys who care about nothing else but having sex. As a result, we have teenaged girls having babies right and left and teenaged fathers who have no intention of caring for their offspring or the girls who are caring for them. What’s the difference between a teenaged father who got 3 different girls pregnant in the past 3 years and the polygamist? (this is rhetorical) The polygamist is actually committed to caring and providing for the children and women connected to him. Polygamy is NOT abuse!!

I don’t agree with plural marriages in the least, but if I want the freedom to raise my childen and teach them our Christian family values then I have to allow the LDS to do so as well.

Believe it or not, not all women feel oppressed or “trapped” because their fathers arranged their marriage. I wouldn’t let my teen buy his own car by himself — let alone choose his mate for life by himself. I’m not planning on arranging his marriage, but I’m not going to abandon him to his own inexperienced decisions. Many times arranged marriages result in long-lasting, loving, committed relationships — because love is choice not a feeling!!

Believe it or not, some of us women really believe that our highest calling is parenthood and motherhood and would love to have 15 or 16 children because we love children and believe that this world needs more morally integral people. I am NOT LDS nor do I ever intend to be, but I love children and would be privledged to have a “quiver full”. Being a parent and mother means that we have influence over the next several generations and can raise our children to change the world. What higher calling can there be?

Living in the United States should mean that we are not persecuted for our beliefs, teachings, words or religious affiliation. The law states that we can only be prosecuted for our ACTIONS — that’s why we have LAW. Our country was set up to be ruled by law not by a person or group of persons. It is disturbing that government officials are being allowed to take children from their homes and families simply because the government entity of the day disagrees with the families beliefs. Where is the EVIDENCE of wrong doing? Where have the ACTIONS of these individual parents been harmful to their children?

I am praying that my rights as a parent of my children will not be violated simply because I am a Christian and teach my children that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. I am praying that this fiasco will bring to the forefront of all parents’ minds the threat to their freedom to bring up and teach their children as they see fit. I am praying that God will protect our home from unreasonable search and seizure simply because someone in the community disagrees with my parenting style or religious beliefs.

Not only will I be praying, but I will be acting — doing all that I can to educate others, contact my representatives, write letters, etc.

okay i’m getting tired of the cheap pot shots at liberalism here. Let’s just make one very important point. Where did this incident take place? In conservative, Christian Texas, that’s where. Not in liberal Satanic California. Not in Hell’s Living Room Massachusetts. Not anywhere liberal. This took place in conservative country by conservative judges and by conservative state officials. Enough with the pot shots towards liberalism. Better aim those shots at the utter hypocrisy within conservative Christianity.

It’s not about liberal/conservative, I think the line falls more on the libertarion/socialist axis than the other one, I think many “conservatives” don’t like the fact that the government is stepping over where it should be, while “liberals” don’t like the fact that peoples rights are infringed. It’s basically two sides of the same coin. This whole debacle just has too many holes, and I think people are going to realize that cps doesn’t have to follow the constitution like the other parts of the government. Now it may sound callous but I would rather “sacrifice” these 437 children to these “rapists” than I would for a whole country to be taken over by an over-zealous government. Children are beautiful, but they are their parents, not the governments.

“Liberal” and “conservative” are not especially useful categories. Indeed, I would say that they are almost meaningless.

Consider: Are the FLDS liberals or conservatives? Is CPS a liberal agency or a conservative one?

Some people describe the FLDS as a dangerous cult that must be suppressed at all costs. Others have expressed concern about protecting the rights of the FLDS. Which is the “liberal” position and which is the “conservative” position?

People who call themselves conservatives are all over the map on what should be done about the FLDS; likewise with those who call themselves liberals.

I suggest we refrain from using “liberal” and “conservative” in this discussion

I wish I hadn’t come across this website. I find it so interesting, that it is interfering with me getting my work done! I find religion quite fascinating, particularly having spent 15 years in a very conservative fundamentalist group (not polygamus) wearing that dreadful hairdo these girls have. I won’t get into why I was in and why I got out, but I do have first hand experience on the power over one’s own thinking and how the fear of hell can be much more powerful than walls etc. For those that claim the FLDS people (men and women) were not forced to stay, you don’t know how much more powerful a prison without bars is than a physical one. I am very curious though about a few points, one in particular and was hoping that someone posting here could fill me in. How does a religion get formed around polygamy when the natural ratio of girls and boys is very close to 1:1? It would seem to me then that a religion such as this would have to marry young girls and keep the young men waiting long enough so that they either leave by choice or get exiled. If the girls are married very young, the chances of her maturing enough to make her own true decision is much less, plus the many children soon to come keep her quite dependent on the group and without the means to leave. I can’t see any other way to keep the polygamy going. I’m not trying to slam polygamy. Sometimes, I think it could be quite handy if I had a “sister wife”. I’m just trying to understand the logic considering there are roughly the same numbers of girls and boys born. I realize this is getting away from the Texas case, but just thought I would put it out there. Thanks.

modest in 2008 (32): Raw numbers of men and women are virtually identical by young adulthood, but that doesn’t mean that men and women are “marriageable” in the same numbers, especially in a religious environment. One of the most common discussions on (mainstream, non-polygamous) Mormon blogs is the disparity in numbers between women who are healthy, intelligent, religious, educated (i.e., prime candidates for marriage) and men who have the same qualities. Women seem to desire marriage more than men; religious women apparently even more so. So we end up with a lot of attractive single women who are active church adherents, and virtually no actively religious single men for them to marry.

The widely used term for such women used to be “superfluous women” — thank heavens we no longer use such a derogatory term, but the numbers of “extra” women who desire marriage to an eligible man far outnumber eligible men.

Thanks Ardis. That’s an interesting point. However, I wonder why women tend to be more involved in religion then than men, particularly one like this one where the men have all the power. Also, that might account for maybe a few extra women to men, but some of these men have a lot more than 3 wives (which from what I understand is the minimum necessary). Those in the most power with anywhere from 20 – 80 from some accounts. That is really skewing the natural order no? I’m not making any conclusions – just observations.

modest, I think you overestimate the “power” of FLDS men (people accuse the mainstream Mormons of placing all power in the hands of men, and I *know* how off-track that one is) and underestimate the desire of women with a conservative worldview, even one that isn’t as conservative as the FLDS, for home and family. And I suspect outsiders overestimate the numbers of FLDS plural wives, too — there’s something about the intersection of sex and religion that leads outsiders to prurient fantasies. I’m an historian, and am very familiar with that phenomenon thru history, not just in this episode of current events.

I fully agree that this is not about liberal vs. conservative, this is about CPS vs. the constitution. Every representative and senator, regardless of political affiliation, should be condemning these actions and calling for an inquiry by a third party. I hope we will see some of this soon.

As for the ratio of women to men. I don’t have the numbers for the FLDS, however back in college we discussed how fewer males survive to reproduce then females. (I have a bio degree and it came up in one class.) We discussed several mechanisms for this including how the sperm with Y’s tend not to survive as long in the womb, the higher rates of stillbirths and congenital defects among male children, and the inherent riskiness of male teenage behavior, among others. We concluded that it was amazing any boys ever survive to reproduce. I’ve never looked into it beyond that, but if true it would give a much higher ratio of girls to boys. Then add the observations above about desiring marriage and interest in faith and it would be very easy to have a large ratio of women to men.

Having said that, however, I must qualify by saying that this would be true in the entire population. The FLDS are a small (very small really) subset of the greater population. It is probable that their ratio is closer to 1:1 then you would find in the entire population. Nevertheless, it is still likely to be somewhat skewed in the female direction. I have also heard in passing that their interrelatedness has led to a number of male babies being born with a congenital mental disability. However, I have not researched that sufficiently to say if it is true or not.

Incidentally, I am not sure what they hope to prove with DNA tests. My understanding is that these folks have inbred for the last 4 generations. The possibility of having some distinct genetic marker that would link a specific parent to a specific child is extremely unlikely. More likely would be that they will be able to make the astute observation that “yup, they are all related.” In which case taxpayers paid for unnecessary tests. If more then that comes of the DNA testing I’d like to see all of the data so I can draw my own conclusions. It is extremely unlikely the tests will be able to prove anything useful.

I hope they take this all the way to the Supreme Court and the Court makes it clear that the Constitution is still very much in force.

Thanks Ardis and SH. I appreciate the discussion. Much more interesting than income tax (I’m an accountant from Canada – our tax deadline is April 30th – kind of a busy time – I better get back to the numbers). I find this whole situation quite fascinating – however, I don’t mean to diminish the seriousness of the current Texas situation and hope SH that you are wrong about the DNA testing. Hopefully, they will be able to determine more than that they are all one big incestuous family. I don’t see how the judge will be able to do a family by family case if it can’t be determined for sure who are the children’s parents. I live close to the Canadian FLDS community and news here is that some of the children in Texas were Canadian kids sent to the ranch without their parents. The Canadian authorities are now getting involved too, making this an international, not just a Texas issue.

SH, it will be interesting, because by males getting their only X chromosome from their mother they are more susceptible to genetic defects, factor that in with a tight-knit (in-breeding sounds derogatory) culture the males are going to be even at a higher risk of genetic defects, which can cause anything. I’m not studied enough to know how the DNA tests will come out, but I see them as being very similar, I know only identical twins have the same DNA, but there’s probably a pretty good chance most markers are shared by the whole community.

I can’t see how any CPS action could be better than leaving these kids in their community, I’ve had my run-ins with Texas CPS, and they’re….Deceptive to say the least, never ever under any circumstances trust what they say, and I do hope their lawyers are with them every time they are with CPS officials, keeping a record of everything that happens, if not video cameras. They really should be watched, they “feel” what is “best” for whomever they try to “help” and it can get very twisted.

Also I wish they would stop coming out with these “facts” such as the temple bed used for sex (could it not be used for sleeping, hell I get tired in church) or the cyanide poisioning sheet, cyanide has use in textiles and metal working among other things, it’s better they have that MSDS sheet or whatever it is than not. Also only getting former members that left on bad terms for testimony is really stupid thing for news, why don’t they find someone that didn’t leave on bad terms? Or someone that doesn’t have an organization that specifically targets FLDS, every group has people that fall out from them.

I can’t help thinking, “When the wicked rule, the people mourn.” This could apply equally to either the government or to the FLDS. My heart aches for the sweet tender children who have to suffer because of it. I wish there were something I could do besides pray for them.

Guy, I just read your comment on NYTimes in response to Egan’s opinion piece. What a hatchet job! As another commenter wrote, a professor with a basic knowledge of the Brodie and “Banner of Heaven” books would have given the essay a C. Many comments seemed to recognize the cheap and easy potshots, though, and I’ve noticed that the opinion piece is now buried deep on the Times’ web site, rather than on the front page where I first saw it. Thanks for your site and the work you’re doing!

Yes, as a matter of fact, we DID run to help, from ALL over the State. And if these ad litems are paid ANYTHING, it won’t be anywhere close to the hours they have ALREADY invested in the case (such as moving to another town and living out of a hotel room for days on end) and the time and money they will lose from their own practice. One of the ad litems is an attorney I know, with a small two attorney operation in a small town. She’ll probably go bankrupt doing this, but she feels it’s important. The most I have EVER been paid for a single appearance in a CPS case was $250, so please get your facts straight before casting aspersions.

# 27, you want to be careful about things like this:
“They don’t listen to the real prophet of God and continue perverting condemned teachings while claiming otherwise.”

They believe exactly the same thing about *you* and I believe exactly the same thing about *both* of you, and I am sure we can find somebody who believes exactly the same thing about all three of us as well.

It doesn’t matter what they believe- in this country we have certain freedoms. That makes it possible for each of us to worship- or not- according to how our conscience dictates *even when we are a minority position* without fear of, oh, having our children ripped from our arms because somebody in power has decided to act as the Thought Police.

I call it the Golden Rule- I do not want FLDS people treated in a way I would consider a gross abuse of power if it were done to me.

Society seems to feel that these fundamentalist Mormons are somehow less mentally healthy than society at large.

I would dispute that. Have you ever seen an FLDS woman who was clinically obese, or overweight? I have not.

This would indicate that these women are mentally healthy, at least healthier than society at large with such a deplorable number of obese women,see the billion dollar diet market. Physicians realize that it is deeply rooted emotional problems that cause this obesity situation, especially in women.
So I would suggest that, in addition to their youthful appearances, their normal weight indicates they are in fact, not emotionally traumatized.

I just had an eye-opening experience. My visiting teachers came by. I couldn’t believe that one of them is getting all of her information form Nancy Grace. (!?!?! I don’t even know what to say to that.) She is convinced there were pregnant 13yos at the YfZ ranch and that there were lots of other legal violations. Do we not teach that people are innocent until proven guilty in this country anymore?!?!?!? The other one feels they are getting what they deserve. (!?!?!) Don’t we care about due process anymore?

Then they were telling me how the media was getting the reporting all wrong because they kept calling the FLDS “Mormons.” Yet they were using information from these same sources to try and convince me that the whole raid was justified. Isn’t obvious that if the media reports one thing in error they probably got a few other of their “facts” wrong?!?!?

I am astounded. Have I been completely wrong? Are these sorts of folks in the majority? Or are they the tiny uninformed minority I had believed them to be? Do we stand any chance at all if they are the majority? I am seriously wondering if we can hang onto our constitutional rights if there are so many others willing to just give them away.

I also want to send a heartfelt thank you to all of the lawyers who have donated time and talents to these folks. It means a great deal to know that there are people who care about due process and constitutional rights. Good luck to all of you.

Well said, SH!! It’s really frightening isn’t it? I’m fearful for this nation if the majority are like this. One wonders if there are many who think. It seems they believe that whatever they see on TV and in People magazine is the gospel truth.

I want to add my thanks to all of the lawyers who are donating their time to help. God bless you.

I posted this question with another article, but I havn’t got a response, so I’ll ask it here. I’m confused – there are a lot of people posting that believe that taking the FDLS children away was an abuse of power. So, do you think that the entire CPS system abuses power, or do you think that they only abused power in this unique instance? The reason I ask is because, as I understand it, the Texas CPS social workers are following standard procedure, as much as possible, in this unprecidented case.

When I was teaching (I stay home with my kids now) we were required to report any signs, symptoms or allegations of child abuse that were brought to our attention. If I failed to do so I could loose my job. My friend who is an ER nurse has even more stringent guidelines that she is required to follow so that suspicions of abuse can be followed up on. It was always my understanding that, in the case of children, different procedures were followed than with adults. I always thought that we made this exception to the rules because children are most often NOT capable of reporting their own abuse. They could not file a formal complaint, gather proof, hire a lawyer, etc. They most often are afraid to even talk about their abuse. So, to protect them, social workers remove them from the situation until it can be determined if abuse occurred. I thought that CPS/child abuse cases were always handled differently than criminal cases that involve adults. Maybe I’m wrong. Thoughts?

Teris, the concern I’ve heard expressed most often is that the Texas CPS removed ALL children from the FLDS community, even those who had never been abused and were nowhere near being old enough to be abused. Apparently, there were lots of women who had been married in their 20’s and had children who had never been child brides. Apparently, the initial allegation of abuse probably was a hoax, meaning they had no legitimate probable cause to go there in the first place. etc, etc, etc.

The problem is not with the CPS, per se, but with the mentality that drove the process – that apparently completely trampled on the Constitutional rights of these people, just because they are seen as weirdos. This especially is true when the same CPS agency is NOT prosecuting the thousands and thousands of underage mothers and baby-daddies who are having kids and not even trying to raise them.

Iow, it’s not necessarily the concept; it’s the specific justification and application that stinks to Heaven. I repeat the Golden Rule in #47 – “I do not want FLDS people treated in a way I would consider a gross abuse of power if it were done to me.”

I feel that just about anything CPS does is an abuse of power, warrantless searches, civil cases that have to follow no law, subjective standards, deception just to name a few. As having been involved with CPS before they lie to a “perpetrator” with just about every sentence. And they always try to “treat” the “victim” with masses of therapy. But that’s just my view, I think most of CPS needs to be eliminated and the rest moved to criminal law, its retarded to be found not guilty in child abuse to never see your children again.

Mentally healthy? These women are brainwashed as young girls to think that all this all right. There fathers are nothing more then pimps forcing there girls out there to marry grown men whom most never have known. They all deserve what they get from the law.

“The reason I ask is because, as I understand it, the Texas CPS social workers are following standard procedure, as much as possible, in this unprecidented case”

No, no, most assuredly not. DFPS has violated its own guidelines and normal procedures over and over and over again in this case. First, DFPS normally removes the abusers, not their victims. Second, DFPS NEVER allows parents to come along after a removal. By definition, if the situation is bad enough to warrant removal, then its not safe for the parents to be around the kids. And in this case, DFPS removed the kids and some parents, then kicked the parents out, and now is bringing some parents back in. And that’s the biggest problem with this judicial farce: unless DFPS has a SPECIFIC allegation, than a SPECIFIC mother is a danger to a SPECIFIC child, then they are REQUIRED to return the child. So far, they have absolutely nothing other than a vague accusation that SOME kids have gotten married AT SOME POINT IN TIME while under age 16 and that FLDS encourages lawful underage marriage (i.e., 16 and over) with parental consent. There is simply no legal precedent in Texas for treating 400+ people, let alone children, as a faceless generic group and not proving ANY individualized evidence on ANY of them.

“They all deserve what they get from the law”

Translation: “I heard on the internets that these people are icky, so therefore who cares if their constitutional rights, and the constitutional rights of their children, are being violated? Ship ‘em to Gitmo!”

Crank and others – thanks for the reply to my question. Perhaps now that DNA tests have been done, they can identify which specific children belong to which specific mother and father. I would think that this would help many of the FLDS parents regain custody of their children. Maybe they let mothers come along because they never believed them to be a threat to the children, but could not identify which men – who they claimed were the abusers – were living with which children?

It seems that facts are hard to find, but I want to understand what is happening because I feel so strongly about this issue. The secretive nature of the FLDS communities just makes them seem suspicious. Although they shouldn’t have to, this is a perfect chance for them to end the speculation. If they can produce birth records, marriage records, etc. they could finally put to rest the accusations of welfare fraud, tax fraud, child rape, child abandonment, and other even less substantiated claims, it would be serious “pie in the face” of those who have made these claims for years. If they can’t – if the facts prove their accusers RIGHT – then I think that as heartbreaking and controversial as this raid has been, it will be justified.

I agree with you, FLDS’ secretive ways are very suspicious. That doesn’t change the fact that the State of Texas trampled on the rights of every American.
There are enough laws and legal techinques that this should never have happened to any group of people. The State is using children to rid themselves of these people.
I don’t believe in their ways, but I hope after the all is said and done FLDS sues the local and state governments right into bancruptcy.
I read where a caseworker said if several hundred (make that 462) are taken away to save 4 or 5, then it was worth it.
The scary part is that means 99% of the innocent have to be punished for the guilty!
Be afraid, be very afraid!

Teri- Do you really believe the ends justify the means? If so we might as well just throw away that old piece of parchment with the squiggles we call a constitution.

The whole point of the constitution was to limit the means to reasonable conduct of government. That even allows that sometimes the ends will not occur. But the founding fathers found it preferable to accidentially misjudge someone as innocent rather then to misjudge someone as guilty. Hence the popular phrase “innocent until proven guilty.”

The trouble is that in this case the CPS has decided that all of the people are guilty, until and unless they prove their innocence. (I would even submit that they feel ALL of us parents, everywhere, are guilty until proven innocent.) This flies in the face of our constitutional rights.

Part of the point of constitutional law is that we have the right to be just as weird and different and, yes, even secretive, as we would like to be, with no legal repercussions unless we actually commit a crime. And, even then, the burden of proof is supposed to be on the state, to prove we are guilty. That is not what happened in this case.

I would submit that CPS has likely been overstepping the law for years, but not receiving this sort of national attention for it. Sometimes it takes an egregious case, the limelight, a celebrity or some combination of those, to finally bring an injustice to light. That seems to be what has happened here.

May it go all the way to the supreme court quickly if that is what it takes to return these children to their homes and families. (Except in those few cases where a law was actually broken.)

I’m afraid bigamy isn’t going to count this time, either, because that isn’t the justification CPS used for their raid. Too bad, too. I was looking forward to seeing the people engaged in bigamy brought before the law to see what, if any, consequence there is for it. My understanding is that it still stands as an unchallenged law.

So think very carefully about the burden of proof and ask yourself “if it were my children, would I feel this result was justified based on the evidence given?” The ends never justify the means.

This Texas raid is truely a horriffic travesty for many reasons. I’ll bet those big rangers are feeling tough about now. The lowest slime on earth picks on the helpless, the women and kids. I’m well aware of many of the faults of these people, but they aren’t anything of what they are accused. They are some of the best parents you will find. They are gentle,loving, dutiful, clean, healthy and God Fearing. Those two girls (Ruth and Velvet) that Ms. Adams listed on her blog are truely angels, they were without children for many years and now to have them removed from them is almost more than some of us who have known them can take. I no longer live among them, but can honestly say they are just simply the greatest. Thanks again to all who are helping, the attorneys, etc. I also know that there are many rangers and workers who are not happy about this sad situation. I am the nephew of the lady that had her children taken in Utah after the 53 Shortcreek Raid, and I have seen first hand the results of such actions. Some never recover. Let’s do all we can to restore the women and children as soon as possible to avoid further trauma, and to defend the rights of all Americans, Christian, Jew, Athiest or otherwise.

There are just three girls under the age of 18 that the state thinks may be pregnant from FLDS.
One will be 18 years old in a month, one refused to take a pregnancy test and one whose age is yet to be determined.

Among many references to this account: The Salt Lake Tribune 04/26/2008 05:14:10 PM MDT

But the State is still refusing to release the kids. Two children under two years of age are now missing by the State of Texas’s own admission! (Though I am sure some logical explanation will come up?) Three or more little children are hospitalized as of Friday; one is in critical condition because he is an infant that could not adjust without his mother’s milk. CPS admits that many have contracted chicken pox, measles, diarrhea, flu, viruses and other diseases they were not inoculated for now that they are exposed to the “mainstream” and are blaming it on the parents. And of course, as we all now know, (providing you have some education on the subject), the State of Texas has now concluded that the original call was a hoax.

Those of you who judged and threw your own accusations should hope someone other than a person like yourself is around to defend you if you have the misfortune of having your life torn apart and have your children taken away.

Susan- I am not aware of anyone on this thread defending the practice of polygamy. What many of us are saying is that in America we are all supposed to be “equal under the law.”

No matter how “icky” you may find polygamy the facts seem to be that CPS removed a whole town of children based on unsubstantiated reports of abuse, and the court upheld the removal without due process. This flies in the face of our constitutional rights. That is what I (and I think most of the people who have posted their support of the return of the children) have a problem with.

Interestingly, no one in this case seems to have been charged with polygamy or bigamy. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) So while the media is hyping the “yuck” factor of polygamy, that is actually immaterial.

So which do you want? A country where you have to worry whether the state will find something you do “icky,” but where no one is allowed to do anything the state feels is “icky?” Or a country where you, but also people you consider to have “icky” practices, are allowed to raise their children in peace?

To my knowledge there hasn’t been anyone convicted of polygamy or bigamy in 100 years. That makes it a law without teeth. We don’t know what the court would feel was just punishment for breaking that law. Would it be a $100 fine and a day in jail, or serious prison time with the termination of all parental rights, or, would they overturn the law as unconstitutional? We don’t know. It hasn’t been tried. No matter the outcome of this case as it stands the law still won’t have been.

Now, there are alleged cases of statutory rape. Certainly the prosecutors office should investigate those cases and arrest and prosecute the perpetrator if any of those cases are substantiated. They could even charge the men who have more then one wife with bigamy since it is illegal. (However, they might find that sort of case really hard to prosecute in our promiscuous age.) But, in either case, the children should be returned to their mothers.

As for the priesthood leader comment, I’m not sure what you are trying to get at. However, I do know that there is a lot of information available at LDS.org. If you have questions I suggest you do some reading over there.

Susan, I wrote a long e-mail to a friend about my perception of polygamy as practiced in the early LDS church. It is VERY long, so I abridged it slightly to post on a friend’s blog. I apologize to Guy for posting the abridged version here, since it still is LONG, but consider this an answer from one LDS Priesthood holder. The second paragraph is particularly relevant to what you wrote:

“As I hope is obvious, I agree we don’t have anything to apologize for when it comes to polygamy, especially when both of our ancient, historical, recorded works of scripture (Bible AND Book of Mormon) teach that monogamy is the standard but polygamy is an acceptable alternative when necessary as a temporary arrangement.

My first point – the most critical one of all – is that anyone who accepts the Old Testament prophets as legitimate prophets cannot condemn polygamy as an evil practice, in and of itself. Certainly, it can be and is abused terribly by uninspired people (including David and Solomon and modern-day “fundamentalists”), but it also was practiced correctly by prophets (including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David – before his fall, Isaiah, etc.). That understanding is critical as a foundation. If someone can’t admit and accept that, they probably will not accept it’s practice in our history.

There are different types of reasons, I believe, for polygamy in this dispensation. Many people (including myself) cite the Book of Mormon where it outlaws polygamy for that society but allows for it to be commanded in the future in order to “raise up seed unto me.” (Jacob 2:30) I agree completely that part of why polygamy was instituted was to fulfill that need, but I see it a little differently than most.

They usually assume that it means so more children can be born, but I think it means simply that those who would practice polygamy, because of the trials and persecution that they would face, would produce extraordinarily valiant and dedicated offspring – “seed unto God”. Most of the General Authorities for at least the first 140 years of the Church’s existence were descendants of those who practiced polygamy. It only is recently, in the past 20-30 years, that converts and those from non-polygamous ancestry have started to be called regularly to those positions. I don’t think that is coincidence, but rather the fulfillment of prophesy.

Given the terrible persecution it caused, I believe that the major reason polygamy was revealed, taught and practiced by Joseph Smith was to solidify the foundation concept of eternal families early in the Church’s history. Almost everything Joseph Smith taught focused on and developed our current understanding of eternal life and eternal marriage. It is perhaps the single most unique aspect of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ – that we can be sealed to our spouse for time and all eternity inside a greater framework of “bound community” – that family ties can last forever through the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood, embodied in a marriage ceremony. (I think it is one of the central concepts taught in the Bible, but nobody understood that before the sealing power was restored.)

If you accept that concept, then you almost must accept the “concept” of polygamy, since the chance that an equal number of men and women will qualify for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom essentially is a mathematical impossibility. I am not saying that I believe all who make it there will be in a polygamous relationship. I hope not and, looking at its practice in our past, I see that most members never did practice it – so I doubt it is a requirement. I think the faith to accept it if asked might be, but I seriously doubt it will be required of all – or even very many.

It is conceivable that a group of people could believe in the concept of eternal marriage that includes the possibility of polygamy without practicing it here on earth, but the practice of polygamy and the persecution that followed embedded the concept of eternal family deeply into the souls of the earliest members in a way that could not have happened by listening to a Sunday School lesson or General Conference talk. (For example, I understand that smoking is addictive, but I don’t understand it quite as deeply as someone who has been addicted and quit.) They lived it and were persecuted harshly for it, so they KNEW it.

I think that, by the end of the 1800’s, the foundation of bedrock belief in eternal marriage and the sealing of family across generations and within the community was so ingrained throughout the Church that the practice of polygamy could be abandoned without losing the principle behind it. The Manifestos stopped the practice, but it did not destroy the understanding of the principle.”

This is not true. An adult having any kind of sex, consensual or otherwise, with anyone under the age of 17 (and not the spouse of the actor) is sexual assault of a child. Under the age of 14, and it is aggravated sexual assault of a child. There is a defense if the parties were less than 4 years apart in age AND the encounter was consensual.

“To my knowledge there hasn’t been anyone convicted of polygamy or bigamy in 100 years.”

There have been several cases of bigamy prosecuted in Texas in the last 40-50 years.

“Now, there are alleged cases of statutory rape”

There’s no such offense as statutory rape in Texas. It’s sexual assault of a child, whether it’s a high school senior and his freshman girlfriend having consensual sex or a godless 50 year old pervert forcing himself on some child he kidnapped off the street.

BTW, the Book of Mormon says quite clearly that abuse will happen on a widespread basis in polygamy when it is not condoned by God. There is no evidence of widespread abuse in the early LDS Church; once it was abolished, abuse eventually became systemic.

For a very good example of this happening within the FLDS group, there is an excellent post at:

And the punishment these parents have suffered is worse than the electric chair. They have to live the rest of their lives, wondering if their children, their babies, are now with someone who is abusing them. And sadly, according to statistics on foster children, especially in the State of Texas, chances are these children and babies will have nothing but misery to come.

No one who was involved in this crime against humanity has the right to get off the hook by saying “I was just doing my job,” Their Nuremberg will come. You don’t destroy lives, especially innocent lives, just so you can do your petty government job.

Crank- Thanks for the correction. I was unaware of the bigamy cases. But then why not just charge the men with bigamy? That is the seemingly obvious crime being committed? Why the unproven and unfounded accusations when there is a perfectly good, seemingly well known, charge available? Why not go with the sure thing? I don’t have an answer to that, so don’t go reading anything into it. I think they should have been charged with bigamy, and anything else that could be actually proven.

As for the sexual assault vs. statutory rape, Texas defines the terminology differently then the state I grew up in. In that state sexual assault was defined as unwanted touching of private parts, whereas statutory rape was used to describe illegal intercourse with a minor. (As per the police officer that responded to the sexual assault that happened at one of the dorms I liven in.) Whatever it is called, in any state, it is still wrong and illegal. Anyone engaging in it should be charged accordingly and brought before the court to answer for their crime.

I really don’t understand why Texas created this farce with the unsubstantiated charges when there seem to have been obvious real charges available. They could have handled this situation carefully, legally, and acceptably. Why do it the illegal way?

Does anyone know what the ramifications of having violated the UN convention on genocide are? Did we just give away America’s sovereignty? Will we have peacekeepers on American soil soon? This was so unnecessary.

They used the allegations of sexual assault because they aren’t sure the anti-bigamy laws would hold up under a constitutional challenge. If states are allowing gay marriages and NOT prosecuting either homosexual or heterosexual adultery and fornication as such, it might be difficult to disallow polygamous heterosexual marriages – especially if there is no marriage certificate for the additional marriages. In that case, how is having more than one wife different than having one wife and multiple non-married sex partners? Legally, there is no difference.

Crank–If you are still following this post, I have a question, that just came to mind. In CA we have what is called a peremptory challenge in all civil cases that allows any party or an attorney to disqualify a judge for any or no reason, just by filing an affidavit or peremptory challenge to that judge.

Is that available in Texas law, and would it be available in these cases for the next round of hearings if any of these children and/or parents did not want Walther hearing any further matters?

“In CA we have what is called a peremptory challenge in all civil cases that allows any party or an attorney to disqualify a judge for any or no reason, just by filing an affidavit or peremptory challenge to that judge. Is that available in Texas law?”

Oh Good Lord, no! I’ve never even heard of such a thing. In Texas, peremptory challenges can be filed on potential jurors, but that’s it. Here, it is pretty near impossible to recuse a judge from a case, because you can’t use ANYTHING that judge says or does in court. Having said that, I imagine the Supreme Court or the local Court of Appeals will appoint some sort of special magistrate (or magistrates) to hear the rest of this thing. That district court covers five counties and that one judge can’t close down her entire docket for days on end just to handle one case, and one that will have regularly, mandatory hearings to boot.

This is a really disturbing tragedy and the scariest part of all is all the stupid people there that think that arresting and torturing innocent people is ok because “they were evil pedophiles” Sounds like the Salem witch trials all over again.
I don’t see any of these geniuses who “care” about statutory rape proposing going to every highschool in the country and rounding up every pregnant girl and arresting her siblings.

Jeffs has now admitted he is no Prophet and he is the most evil person in the world. Once they get rid of these Cults the girls will see that in the “real world” they can’t be forced to marry grease ball old men who can’t get a woman in the real world so they form or join these cults to feel they are a ruler. These cults are robbing these kids of the right of education,free thinking and the right to chose someone to fall in love with and marry, not forced to by the cult leader.

Ray: “If states are allowing gay marriages and NOT prosecuting either homosexual or heterosexual adultery and fornication as such, it might be difficult to disallow polygamous heterosexual marriages – especially if there is no marriage certificate for the additional marriages. In that case, how is having more than one wife different than having one wife and multiple non-married sex partners? Legally, there is no difference.”

In Texas, it seems there is.
I think you may not be aware of how Texas rewrote its Bigamy laws in 2005 specifically to target this religious group (according the author of those new laws, one Hilderbran):
Texas Penal Code – Section 25.01. Bigamy

§ 25.01. BIGAMY. (a) An individual commits an offense
if:
(1) he is legally married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry a person
other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign
country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor’s prior
marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with a person other than his spouse in
this state under the appearance of being married; or
(2) he knows that a married person other than his
spouse is married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry that person
in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under
circumstances that would, but for the person’s prior marriage,
constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with that person in this state under
the appearance of being married.
(b) For purposes of this section, “under the appearance of
being married” means holding out that the parties are married with
cohabitation and an intent to be married by either party.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1)
that the actor reasonably believed at the time of the commission of
the offense that the actor and the person whom the actor married or
purported to marry or with whom the actor lived under the appearance
of being married were legally eligible to be married because the
actor’s prior marriage was void or had been dissolved by death,
divorce, or annulment. For purposes of this subsection, an actor’s
belief is reasonable if the belief is substantiated by a certified
copy of a death certificate or other signed document issued by a
court.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the lawful wife or
husband of the actor may testify both for or against the actor
concerning proof of the original marriage.
(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree, except that if at the time of the commission of the offense,
the person whom the actor marries or purports to marry or with whom
the actor lives under the appearance of being married is:
(1) 16 years of age or older, the offense is a felony
of the second degree; or
(2) younger than 16 years of age, the offense is a
felony of the first degree.

Note the letters B and b. Personally, I would love to see this go to the Supremes. I can’t imagine it could hold up- I think it’s illegal to specifically target a religious group like that, but it also it looks to me like an adulterous couple representing themselves as married for a one night stand could be charged with bigamy.

It also looks to me like many members of countries where polygamy is allowed (some African cultures, Islam) are committing Bigamy if they reside in Texas. Are they next?